Hi, "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 4:13 PM >>To: Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>Cc: Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Greg Kroah-Hartman >><gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: gadget: don't remove the request if >>bus-expired >> >>* PGP Signed by an unknown key >> >> >>Hi, >> >>Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> We have already returned EAGAIN for bus-expiry, and it's designed to >>> start with a future Frame number and start the transfer again. So we >>> should not remove the request for that case. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>Do we need a Fixes tag here? How about Cc stable? Can you share >>tracepoints exposing the problem? >> > > I am not sure that we need to Fixes tag, it's not related to any single patch, but > there is definitely something wrong, after rethinking it again, I found that there > are still some problems for this patch, for the reties inside the driver, we should not > remove the request, but if we return -EAGAIN to the gadget layer, we should because > the gadget will requeue the request again if we return -EAGAIN. > > Any suggestions. Well, that needs to be patched, sure. I'm just saying that we need to blame a patch that was incomplete so we know which stable releases need this. Perhaps the patch at fault here was my patch adding the retry method for isoc transfers. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
